I've read the bible......

Indeed. :smiley: I’m not a theist, but I am very active religiously, and it does get a bit frustrating. I empathise with the anti-fundie rage, though!

Yes, I know that. I don’t think I said anywhere that I blamed Satan, and I don’t think there’s anything inherent in chicken (or bets) that means they can’t be on the same team - it seems to me that in the writer’s theology, God must keep Satan around to keep her on her toes. :wink:

Certainly feels it, yes.

Absolutely, I do, because of the covenant made with Noah afterwards. If the flood was the right choice then, why couldn’t it be the right choice again sometime in the future? “I promise I will never ever do that again” is what you say when you’ve made a mistake and recognise it.

Thank you for the book recommendation! I’ve read and very much enjoyed Harold Bloom’s Book of J, even though Harold Bloom usually makes me want to pull my hair out, and there are disappointingly few books in the area that I’ve been able to find.

As a kid I read it (Good News version, I think) because I was in church every week. When I was locked in as an atheist at 15 or 16 I read it again. This time I read the King James Version. My memory isn’t good enough to make any real comparisons at this point, but at the time I was looking for a pretty literal translation without having to learn actual latin (whether I found it, is a different argument, I’m just explaining the thought process I had as a 15 or 16 year old).

Um… the Bible was not written in Latin. It was written in Aramaic, ancient Greek, and ancient Hebrew.

That aside, what meant you by a literal translation?

i love the story of king david, and joseph heller treats it lovingly in “oh God.”
Revelations is so bad it’s laughable. how does a christian read the entire bible and still hold to christianity?

Chronos, I thought you were a scientist- :confused:

Religion hasn’t been a real focus of mine for quite some time and things slip. I do know enough that it was originally written in Aramaic (et al). But at a certain point wasn’t it translated into latin by monks and such and wasn’t it taught that way for a while?

I guess what I meant by literal is simply that in my rather limited biblical education, what I’ve noticed some versions have some of the more harsher edges removed, linguistically speaking. I’m not really referring so much to content.

I would never classify myself as a religious scholar and I’m happy to be corrected on any of this. The church I went to was United, and that’s pretty liberal. We only learned the happy bible stuff (which is why I read it, incidentally).

The Old testament is written mostly in Hebrew with some Aramaic. The New Trestament is written entirely in Koine Greek. St. Jerome, a 4th Century priest, translated the whole shebang into Vulgar (“common”) Latin. That Bible became known as the Vulgate, and it was the standard Church Bible for the next 1000 years or so.

I’ll bet they skipped the part where those same daughters tricked Lot into impregnating them because they thought they were the last people on Earth, too…